Right now I'm creating an NPC whose rather evil actions are for a greater good, done for the noblest reasons, in the worst situations, with a knowledge that he will die in the end, and with his eyes open that he's a nasty piece of work. His alignment will matter muchly in several ways so I need to figure it out. Unfortunately, as in all cases where you do much character creation, neat little lines in the sand are a pain to draw. Especially since those lines have unfortunate repercussions. There are many ways to define the alignment of good and evil (rather than the actions).

Good / Evil is a category based on intent. Of course, most villains believe they're the heroes of the story, even if any outsider can tell you that they're not. It's still workable, however, if you define intent as to prevent pain / help others (good); help themselves or take the easy option (neutral); or purposefully hurt and damage others(evil). Thus, a Nidalese slave owner could be good if they enslaved those who would otherwise be culled; neutral if they simply needed the labor without the consequence; or evil if it was to have a degraded and helpless work force.

Good / Evil is a sliding scale. Over the course of weeks or months, people may slide back and forth between the two, depending on the weight of their good or evil deeds. Every sin, no matter how small, tilts you toward evil by degrees and every redeemable action, no matter how small, tilts you toward good. Thus you could work your alignment up into good repeatedly with petty indiscretions though you'd need to work hard to scrub off each single act of rape or torture.

Good / Evil is a category based on deeds. Good deeds and bad ones have a heavy weight and thus the majority of people are neutral. Of course, you have to define good or evil deeds and their gravity. When is murder a grave deed considering how often adventurers partake? Is sacrificing a sentient creature any different than slaying a dozen of them?

Good / Evil is a category based on your nature. This could range from the simple, old school view of evil as a cackling monster and good as a being of harmony and sweetness; right to someone never committing an evil deed but being so enthralled by the pain they cause during their adventures that while they don't step off the path they're still evil to their core.

I know that alignment discussions tend to get quite heated so let's just agree to disagree from the start. This isn't about a morality amongst PEOPLE. This is about how you, as a STORYTELLER, define people according to story principles. Different games and different genres will impact which option you choose and which option you choose will impact the story, regardless of whether those definitions fit your real life views.

I'm more interested in a conversation amongst STORYTELLERS on how you've defined Good / Evil, whether you've consulted the players on your style of Good / Evil so you're all on the same page, and how it's affected your story.

For example, a sliding scale of good and evil makes it more dubious to judge and slay someone with an Evil alignment while a categorically Evil person under the cackling unambiguous style of game gives you little reason NOT to slay them.

The Operative: I'm sorry. If your quarry goes to ground, leave no ground to go to. You should have taken my offer. Or did you think none of this was your fault?
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: I don't murder children.
The Operative: I do. If I have to.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Why? Do you even know why they sent you?
The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster.What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.

Killing can be justified in a hundred different ways, and even torture (depending on how one defines torture, of course) and slavery might be entirely fine in a consensual BDSM relationship. Now, institutionalized slavery, murder, or torture is almost always Evil (though one can make arguments about forced labor or execution as appropriate punishments for crimes) but acts themselves are always neutral devoid of context.

What matters, for me, both as a storyteller and in real life, is indeed intent. But intent isn't as simple as people make it out to be, everyone has a dozen different motives for everything they do, and people lie to themselves all the time about why they're really doing things...and the more you do bad things 'in a good cause' the easier those lies become.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions because they make it so much easier to justify that first murder, and the first makes the second easier, and before you know it killing people is just a chore. Or worse yet a rush, maybe even an addiction.

A man who truly has no other choice can kill a child to save the world and remain a Good man. But how often does that situation really come up? How uncertain of the result does a man need to be before that child's death is no longer justified? And what if it's only a village, not the world? How many people are worth that one child? These kinds of questions rapidly lead down some very unpleasant roads involving the weight of human lives...and quickly become excuses to do anything for many people who truly buy into them.

A guy like Ozymandias (from Watchmen) might be NG, as he does wht he truly believes is necessary to save the world, or he might be NE, as he convinces himself of that while staging a coup to place greater power in his own hands. Either is possible, and the truth might also easily be somewhere in between (True Neutral, LN, something else entirely).

Rorschach (from the same comic book) wasn't Good. He was LN, probably, but it wasn't because he brutally murdered people. It was because, while he claimed it was for the greater good, he did it at least as much as a release of rage, as a self-justification to give his life meaning, and because he enjoyed it, as he did to punish the criminals in question.

Dexter (from Showtime's series of that name) is LE, because his killings have nothing to do with the fact that those people are guilty. His target selection does, but he kills because it feels so good. And that kind of selfish disregard for another for personal pleasure? Evil.

It's late, and I'm rambling, but those are some of my thoughts on the matter.

Dexter (from Showtime's series of that name) is LE, because his killings have nothing to do with the fact that those people are guilty. His target selection does, but he kills because it feels so good. And that kind of selfish disregard for another for personal pleasure? Evil.

I wonder about this. Warriors are trained to "glory in battle", knowing that stoking a fighter's passion for the fight makes him a stronger fighter and more fearsome enemy. But as long as he knows to always choose the bad guy to fight, that desire to kill is not necessarily evil. So, we shouldn't mix up intent with motivation. Let's say that I enjoy dangerous things. I can choose to attack police and army bases. Or I can choose to become a firefighter. Or I can go skydiving. All three options release my passion for the dangerous, but first has bad intent and is an evil choice, the second has neutral intent and is an amoral choice, and third has good intent and is a good choice. My motivation is to experience danger. My choice and intent is to save lives doing it.

Dexter's passion is the killing of other humans--which may be distasteful, sure. He doesn't glory in war, but thrives on showing cleverness and dominance (I'm just guessing as to what the pleasure is derived from). So his motivation is to kill people. Just like the warrior, only in a different way. It's his choices and intent that matter: he decides and intends to kill evil people. He painstakingly researches them to make sure they're evil people. His motivation: he enjoys killing. His intent and choice: he kills evil people.

Is he really evil? I think a very strong argument could be made for chaotic good. Of course, I suspect, in the end, you're probably right: he's LE. His reason for choosing these targets is so that he can justify himself, not because he really cares very much that he's taking bad guys out. It's more of a personal code trained into him by his foster father, "Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood...", or not killing innocents? On the other hand, if you don't kill innocents and you're opposed to others killing innocents...

I've always run with the distinction between Good and Evil to be similar, if not the same, as the distinction between Selflessness and Selfishness. The man who puts his life at risk to kill an invader intent on raping and pillaging his village is selfless, whereas the man who would kill a village's defenders to feed his desire for wealth and pleasure is selfish.

As another example, in my current homebrew I have a high rank devil helping the party. The reason being is that the fate of the universe is at stake and despite being truly evil he does also reside in the universe, so it going up in smoke doesn't sit well with him. However, his motivations aren't for the common good or others well-being, its because his arse is on the line too so he'll, begrudgingly, aide those who on any other day would be his enemy. Especially the Paladin, who doesn't know about the devil helping them... yet. =)

I will admit though, I really don't care for over the top, evil for the sake of being evil villians. I probally spend entirely too much time worrying about NPC motivations.

Let's say that I enjoy dangerous things. I can choose to attack police and army bases. Or I can choose to become a firefighter. Or I can go skydiving. All three options release my passion for the dangerous, but first has bad intent and is an evil choice, the second has neutral intent and is an amoral choice, and third has good intent and is a good choice. My motivation is to experience danger. My choice and intent is to save lives doing it.

I'm just a little curious on why skydiving is considered good, while fire fighting is considered neutral and amoral.

I wonder about this. Warriors are trained to "glory in battle", knowing that stoking a fighter's passion for the fight makes him a stronger fighter and more fearsome enemy. But as long as he knows to always choose the bad guy to fight, that desire to kill is not necessarily evil. So, we shouldn't mix up intent with motivation. Let's say that I enjoy dangerous things. I can choose to attack police and army bases. Or I can choose to become a firefighter. Or I can go skydiving. All three options release my passion for the dangerous, but first has bad intent and is an evil choice, the second has neutral intent and is an amoral choice, and third has good intent and is a good choice. My motivation is to experience danger. My choice and intent is to save lives doing it.

I'm definitely with you so far.

jupistar wrote:

Dexter's passion is the killing of other humans--which may be distasteful, sure. He doesn't glory in war, but thrives on showing cleverness and dominance (I'm just guessing as to what the pleasure is derived from). So his motivation is to kill people. Just like the warrior, only in a different way. It's his choices and intent that matter: he decides and intends to kill evil people. He painstakingly researches them to make sure they're evil people. His motivation: he enjoys killing. His intent and choice: he kills evil people.

And here's where I start to disagree. Dexter sometimes fudges evidence so killers go free for the sole purpose of killing them himself. He has very specific rules he won't break, sure (heck, that's why I peg him as Lawful), but when you come right down to it, he's often intentionally risking innocent lives so he can get his fix. Or to avoid getting caught. He also psychoogically tortures his victims significantly, for absolutely no real reason beyond his own pleasure. Torturing prisoners you're about to kill anyway for pleasure is...pretty damn evil.

Someone who killed evil people (usually fairly quickly) and enjoyed it, but legitimately put saving innocents first could be Neutral or Good aligned easily enough, but Dexter (with occasional individual exceptions) puts the kill first. He would rather kill a murderer than prevent a murder, as a rule.

This sort of thing (to a lesser degree) is also a large part of why I peg Rorchach as LN. He cares more about saving people than Dexter ever could or would, but still sometimes puts punishment ahead of it, and also delights in torture.

jupistar wrote:

Is he really evil? I think a very strong argument could be made for chaotic good. Of course, I suspect, in the end, you're probably right: he's LE. His reason for choosing these targets is so that he can justify himself, not because he really cares very much that he's taking bad guys out. It's more of a personal code trained into him by his foster father, "Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood...", or not killing innocents? On the other hand, if you don't kill innocents and you're opposed to others killing innocents...

I think most people think of murder as "morally unjustified killing". I know that it is really a word of legality, but it is often used in the way I mean, I think.

This.

The things you described above justifiable killings, not murder.

If you define murder as any morally unjustifiable killing, then sure, it's not justifiable. It's also not appropriate to list with slavery or torture unless you define them similarly, and frankly, while that seems a reasonable enough thing to do in common usage, doing it in a moral debate makes things harder than they really need to be as you suddenly need a new word for, oh, 'moral torture', say.

Let's say that I enjoy dangerous things. I can choose to attack police and army bases. Or I can choose to become a firefighter. Or I can go skydiving. All three options release my passion for the dangerous, but first has bad intent and is an evil choice, the second has neutral intent and is an amoral choice, and third has good intent and is a good choice. My motivation is to experience danger. My choice and intent is to save lives doing it.

I'm just a little curious on why skydiving is considered good, while fire fighting is considered neutral and amoral.

My personal opinion is that adventurers are generally murderers because they don't always REACT to bad guys and generally don't sniff around to see if those goblins have done anything yet. All they know is that those goblins attacking them are attacking them - doesn't matter that the adventurers are human home invaders! It's far less moral than a SWAT officer shooting someone about to mow down civilians.

But, of course, in my fantasy RPing I've only used that version of Good and Evil in a cowboy game I ran because that sort of moral ambiguity made it a fun game AND I would totally give them the chance to force a surrender or take those goblins to prison. Oh, and they'd be reacting to murders, much like sheriffs, rather than just randomly stumbling across them and picking on them because they're expected to be evil. :)

Now having said that, in your average fantasy game, you really don't need to react to them being evil because your GM signposts the good from the bad. Do they attack you? Then kill with impunity. Do they try to be defensive and hide their children? Then don't. This is fair and right because switching sub-genres mid-stream and realising you've done evil by playing by the unspoken rules isn't cool.

I'd make an exception for such an encounter in an obvious high roleplaying game, close to the start, where the characters are meant to be jarred from their thinking as well, but it doesn't sit well in the middle a campaign unless you're trying to change the rules. You can bet your bottom dollar that they're going to step cautiously around encounters in future.

I like the Dexter being LE or CG idea quite a lot, actually. How would it change the game if he were portrayed one way or another?

Let's say that I enjoy dangerous things. I can choose to attack police and army bases. Or I can choose to become a firefighter. Or I can go skydiving. All three options release my passion for the dangerous, but first has bad intent and is an evil choice, the second has neutral intent and is an amoral choice, and third has good intent and is a good choice. My motivation is to experience danger. My choice and intent is to save lives doing it.

I'm just a little curious on why skydiving is considered good, while fire fighting is considered neutral and amoral.

I think most people think of murder as "morally unjustified killing". I know that it is really a word of legality, but it is often used in the way I mean, I think.

This.

The things you described above justifiable killings, not murder.

If you define murder as any morally unjustifiable killing, then sure, it's not justifiable. It's also not appropriate to list with slavery or torture unless you define them similarly, and frankly, while that seems a reasonable enough thing to do in common usage, doing it in a moral debate makes things harder than they really need to be as you suddenly need a new word for, oh, 'moral torture', say.

So, how are we defining our terms here?

I'm not sure this isn't the common usage, though, DW. killing = "taking another life" (morality isn't specified), murder = "morally unjustified taking another life", torture = "causing a morally unacceptable level of suffering on another person" (as opposed to simply "hurting" or "aggrieving"), slavery has gotten a bit of a bad rap as a word to come to = "morally unjustified bondage and servitude"

That's unfortunate, for we are reduced to using language like "indentured servant" and "indebted servitude" and "hard labor punishment" and "bonded servant". I can't think of a good clean word without a moral component where a person is required to serve another.

This thread has the beginnings of a massive train wreck fireball at its outset. But, never one to shy away, here I go. Again. =)

Evil people always want to define themselves as good. That is not surprising. Everyone does. However, to do this, evil people have to work at it a bit more than everyone else has to.

So, try defining neutral first. A neutral person, being the average human being, generally looks out for his own, is prepared to fight if necessary, will promote his own finances, family and perhaps country, so long as it won't cost him too much, or hurt others too much. In general, a neutral person does try to limit his own actions so they do not hurt others, after all, it's bad neighbor policy. Strangers are more fair game, transients are too, and anyone deemed an enemy by those in power is likely to be badly treated. The point is: This guy will be slightly corrupt, will mistreat others sometimes, but nothing too extreme.

Given this, Good means you try to act to improve the lot of others. Evil means you don't care if you hurt others. It really is that simple. The idea that you have to actively strive to hurt others to be Evil is a smokescreen, trying to push Evil into the realm of the ludicrous, thereby defining everything better than that as Neutral or even Good.

Another popular fallacy is that you can sacrifice anything you want to reach your goals, as long as you like those goals. It's called having the ends justify the means, and it's another excuse for Evil behaviour. You think like that, you act like that, and you're sharply, and largely irredeemably, Evil.

Thus: Doing terrible stuff "for the greater good", with the greater good defined by yourself or someone equally Evil, does not change anything about that Evil alignment you have. Murdering, torturing, enslaving people, all this is Evil. And if you need a definition of murdering compared to killing: Murder is killing someone without reasonable cause, typically that he attacked you.

And before you do it, quotations from the PHB will be soundly ignored. Those texts did not help anyone resolve the issues of alignment, nor will they. That's why these threads keep popping up.

I understand your concerns, Sissyl, that's why I'm aiming to examine it differently here. In truth, you can never come up with a broad definition of morality and have it fit absolutely so it's best if we look away from what the truth (read, our perceptions) of good and evil are as that's more the realm of philosophical discussion.

I'm looking at what the gameplay ramifications of those judgment calls are. For example, if I state that all forms of killing sentient life are evil acts and evil deeds make someone evil, then we're going to have a very non-standard fantasy game (or the majority will be evil).

It seems that most people make these rulings based on their personal views of morality (which is fair) rather than on a categorical system of Alignment Is This (i.e. one's nature, one's deeds, one's intent).

Therefore, this NPC is Evil if I feel them to be Evil based on my understanding of their intentions, actions, and personality.

If we are to look at the PHB (sorry, Sissyl) then things appear to be quite cut and dried. Evil people do evil things because they enjoy being cruel. Good people are those do good things because they enjoy improving other people's lives. Neutral are those in between.

It gets awkward, however, if you have a person do evil things to improve other people's lives.

Not that I'm suggesting the Pathfinder universe is that simplistic. In truth, they gave us the barest grains of details in the PHB because it's something every DM must decide for him/herself. I'm just wondering how you guys decide it.

This thread does appear to have derailed somewhat into chaos, but as we all love chaos and its much better than people killing eachother over whether their morality or the others is the better one I'd say its all for the best.

The quote at the start is the first one I thought of when I read the subject for this thread, as the Agent in Serenity is working to make a better world, however that doesn't mean the world he's helping make is better or even if such a better world would be created by his actions, just given blind obedience and the faith that it will.

Also on the subject of alignment with intent to do good through less than good means, I'm curious where Havelock Vetinari would fit in. I'd say somewhere between lawful neutral and lawful evil myself, as he is after all a Tyrant, and he gives everyone a choice. "help me do this and stay to hear me out, and at any time feel free to leave via the door over there. I won't detain you" However he also won't mention to lack of a floor on the other side of the "freedom" door. Fair but evil, but also neutral as he's offering life with benefits and a chance of redemption, or death and oblivion.

He's working towards progress and advancement for the city he rules but his methods are not always "good" by normal standards, I mean he's used slavery and other means, and the only reason he's not chaotic is that its a waste of time in his eyes and would lead to complications, hence why he legalised crime and put it under government control and taxed the populous so they wouldn't be mugged, and the muggers would track down and "remove" anyone who did mug someone who'd payed for their protection.

Also as far as he's concerned all mimes must be killed without hope, everyone has their quirks I suppose.

A husband and father who kills an attacker to prevent said attacker from raping and killing his wife and children, is that evil?

A pious man sacrifices his son because he was instructed to by his God, is that evil?

Killing someone who was trying to kill you, is that evil.

Murder isn't always evil; sometimes it’s necessary to do good.

Murder is supposedly done in "cold blood", so to speak. It is not a heat of the moment or self-defense thing, it's when you actively plot to destroy another living, sentient being. In the midst of combat, yes, that would be killing.

Perspective it also a nice little word here. From the perspective of the person you're killing (especially with the pious man example), what you're doing is evil, or at least wrong, unless their whole intention was to let you kill them. There have been entire plots upon plots built around forcing a normally good aligned character to finish off a victim and thereby "stain himself." But whatever. I decide, as a storyteller, to go with whatever interpretation of alignment makes sense at the time. For a group of players looking for some fun and not tedious philosophical debate, I'll make people seemingly irredeemable and cartoony-level villains (and he stole 46 cakes, and that's bad...). Morality is a subject which I tend to shoo away from, because it causes pointless argument and breeds no correct answer, despite 3,000 years of bickering, so as a storyteller, i try to keep as far away from its reinterpretation, because it ruins all the fun.

The villain in any story can be almost any alignment. It just depends on what their goals are.

LG Paladin- I'm great, you're not so hot. Watch as someone you thought was an ally slowly slides along the path of fundamentalism until no one is pure and good enough to meet their standards, and all who fall short must die. By fire.

NG Angel- Of Death. "I'm easing suffering. I'm helping people". Watch as someone who believes they're helping others slowly comes to the realization that life is suffering, and the only way to truly end that suffering is to kill them painlessly and sweetly. Maybe, the entire world.

CG Freedom Fighter- Watch as "The ends justify the means" have this defender of tyranny becoming a hundred or a thousand times more vile than the system against which he fights. Watch the slow descent from freedom fighter to terrorist to genocide.

LN Judge- The INQUISITION, What a show! This is the kind of person who is so committed to their ideal of justice that they can justify doing most anything. All in the name of the one true whatever. They ARE THE LAW!

N Spy- No side show have an advantage, not even my own. Try to find him before he gives over information that could start a war, create a plague, heighten a famine, and destroy a kingdom or two or three, in the name of balance.

CN Nihilist- Enjoy the semi-coherent ramblings of this Nietzsche wannabe as he explains how if folks were stronger, they wouldn't suffer, and how nothing really matters in the long run. He may unmake the world just because he can, and because no one else can stop him.

I won't give examples of LE, NE, and CE because those types of villains are done to death, but really, you can have a villain be any aligntment. Good people can do incredibly evil works- in the name of good. That they mean well doesn't change what they do.

Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). As the loss of a human being inflicts enormous grief upon the individuals close to the victim, as well as the fact that the commission of a murder is highly detrimental to the good order within society, most societies both present and in antiquity have considered it a most serious crime worthy of the harshest of punishment. In most countries, a person convicted of murder is typically given a long prison sentence, possibly a life sentence where permitted, and in some countries, the death penalty may be imposed for such an act — though this practice is becoming less common. In most countries, there is no statute of limitations for murder (no time limit for prosecuting someone for murder). A person who commits murder is called a murderer .

Curious, if you guys have read a Song of Ice and Fire, where would you guys place the major families from that on the alignment scale?

The Families don't have alignments per se, being collections of people. Individual people have alignments, though.

Some examples:

Eddard Stark: LG (I mean, really, no argument here.)
Robert Barratheon: CN (Was probably once CG...but being king has not done good things to him. Folows his whim, and perhaps his few human conections.)
Stannis Barratheon: LN (Absolute adherence to law, his word, and what is appropriate without any regard for such things as mercy or human life.)
Tyrion Lanister: CG (Doesn't care about laws, and indeed enjoys breaking all the rules when he can, still a decent, nice, guy for the most part.)
Jaime Lannister: N or possibly CN (Cares nothing for strangers, but fiercely loyal to and protective of those he cares about...and wiling to do awful things to protect them. Has no well-defined code. Still wishes he were a better man than he is.)
Cersei Lannister: NE (Utterly selfish, though she does care for her family, willing to break whatever rules she needs to, and cruel for cruelty's sake fairly regularly.)

A husband and father who kills an attacker to prevent said attacker from raping and killing his wife and children, is that evil?

A pious man sacrifices his son because he was instructed to by his God, is that evil?

Killing someone who was trying to kill you, is that evil.

Murder isn't always evil; sometimes it’s necessary to do good.

Murder is always evil if society's norms prohibit killing another person. There are exception under the law though.

So where killing another person may be necessary where it will be legal and therefore not murder. Such a the soldier killing an enemy combatant, they do so under the law so it's not murder.

Self defense laws allow you protect yourself using reasonable force and when presented with deadly force then deadly force is reasonable in response. So not murder in that case.

Now a pious man who kills his son because God instructs, that's murder but the man may not be held responsible due to insanity. Sacrificing children is evil even if you think God is telling you to do it.

Spoilering the following for people who haven't read the books but are watching the series :)

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:

But from his perspective, the beings in question weren't demons per se...indeed, we still don't know that they were demons in the Evil sense. The Lord of Light's alignment is...nebulous. Or at least was prior to A Dance With Dragons (which I haven't read and really need to), and certainly was to Stannis when he used them.

They were, indeed, divine arbiters of justice and The Right (from his perspective). He only used them to kill those who he percieved as traitors, after all. In Pathfinder, something similar could easily serve Abadar or another Neutral God.

And as for fratricide...when your younger brother has literally risen an army against you and is usurping your rightful title, I'm not sure that can be considered Evil. Less than Good perhaps (as Good people tend not to employ assassins)...but Evil? I think not.

And the moment he heard what was going on up beyond the Wall he immediately put on hold all personal ambitions and battles in the South and went north to do his duty. All without a second thought. That kind of iron conviction to live up to one's responsibilities even when there is room for debate and they conflict with personal ambition is possible for LE...but much more typical of LN.

Stannis is also scrupulously fair. He's unbending, but not unjust, and does honor the spirit of the Law as welkl as the letter (again, possible but not typical for LE).

Now, if we want to talk about Melisandre...her I'd peg as some kind of Evil and a bad influence on Stannis, but that's another discussion.

StrangePackage wrote:

I'd be interested in hearing about the thoughts on the alignment of Varys and Littlefinger.

Varys is probably Neutral or NG, depending on to what degree you believe his "I serve the Realm." If he truly means that he serves the common good of the people of Westeros, he's NG...if not he's N (as he's not a bad guy per se, just opportunistic). He's certainly tried to do right by the realm as a whoe for the most part.

Littlefinger is NE. He's a very smooth, effective, monster, but he actively enjoys hurting people and is utterly without mercy regarding anyone who gets in the way of his ambitions. And cares nothing for any code or principles save his own ambition.

While I'm on other characters, I'd also peg Daenerys Targaryen as NG, and avery good example of a NG ruler you do not mess with. She's a legitimately good, nice, person, but not overly concerned with either laws and rules, or chaos in it's own right.

A husband and father who kills an attacker to prevent said attacker from raping and killing his wife and children, is that evil?

A pious man sacrifices his son because he was instructed to by his God, is that evil?

Killing someone who was trying to kill you, is that evil.

Murder isn't always evil; sometimes it’s necessary to do good.

IMO: Yes, No, Yes(although there is some issue with insanity here that PF does not really support), and depends on why they are trying to kill you.

War in real life is always Evil, Pathfinder is more grey since you have things like Liches and Evil Deities. In real life though, both sides of the war think they are justified and wanton destruction and whole sale slaughter of people is never a Good thing. Talking and Communication, Compromise, Empathy, those are good things. That is not to say that soldiers themselves are evil or bad people, they can still be good people, just stuck in a bad situation. Sometimes bad things must be done for the benefit of your side, or the entire planet, but that does not change the fact that they are bad things. I have never been close to being in War, so I can not fault anyone in those types of situations just trying to survive.

A husband defending his kids is probably not a good act, but I do not see it as an evil act as well. Unlike the above there is no real general understanding for the rapists side of things. I still do not think killing people is ever good though, but sometimes is neutral. This sort of applies also to individuals in war. They are fighting for their lives at any given point, so what they do is neutral as well, although I still say war is evil, as is rape and murder.

I pious man killing his son is both crazy and evil. In Pathfinder is more likely then real life, although I would assume that mostly evil gods would ask for such things, possibly the more selfish Neutral ones, but Never a Good God. In real life he would probably be diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder, which sort of is out of the bounds of the alignment system.

If the police are after you and you gun them down, then I would say that it is evil. If you are a gang enforcer and participate in a drive by, again probably evil. If it is a home invasion and you kill the guy then that would be neutral. So really depends on the situation.

Killing is never directly necessary to do good (In real life). Good lives in an ideal world though, so sometimes we are left with no other alternatives. Sometimes killing is necessary to indirectly do good, obviously you can not do more good if you are dead. Good is hard though, sometimes real hard, and sometimes people do not want to play by Goods rules, and corners must be cut, and things must be done outside of Good to get back to Good, but do not be mistaken. You are trying to get back to Good, you are not doing Good.

The alignment of the NPC should be based on the alignment philosophy of the DM.

Seeing that you're the DM, there is no way anyone here can give a fully thought-out moral doctrine in a small enough post that you can use it and then be informed enough to apply it consistently in your game.

This is an old, smelly can of worms and, as could be predicted, gets everyone pontificating as if they are the authority on a question that has never been definitively answered by the greatest minds ever, whether it be real-life morality or RPG morality, which should definitely be treated as different things.

For example, most here agree that sacrificing your child because God told you to is evil. Now, while I'd agree that anyone who does so today is almost certainly insane, I don't agree that the action is evil. If there is a God, such a being would define morality (we've correlated the two for most of recorded civilization, albeit with different gods and different codes), so if God really told someone to sacrifice their child, it wouldn't be evil. Nobody has to agree with me, and more importantly, if you wanted to say such an action isn't evil in your game, it doesn't matter what's true, or what anyone argues.

A better solution is to give you three simple ideas, let you pick one, and apply it in the way you see best in all situations, so as not to confuse your players, since the rules of alignment that you apply to your NPC should be the same ones you apply to them.

These three views broadly cover most, but not all, ethical systems:

Deontology (best known form: religious morals) - The morality of an action is defined by the characteristics of the action.

Consequentialism (best known form: utilitarianism) - The morality of an action is defined by its results. Long term results are usually only included in this if they are foreseeable.

Teleology - The morality of an action is defined by its intended purpose and/or the virtues (or lack thereof) that motivate the action.

The next question you need to answer is if you will use objective morality, where you apply alignment according to your view (or adopted view), allowing characters to easily believe they are one alignment, while they are assigned another alignment, or will you use subjective morality, where characters are the alignment they believe themselves to be, unless that's just unreasonable.

As an example, if you use objective morality:

Deontological - Your NPC is evil, because murder and torture are evil. Does he have rules for when he commits these acts? Lawful. No? Chaotic. Between? Neutral.

Teleologist - Let's say your NPC is torturing someone because they did something very bad. Is your character more concerned with avenging a victim? Good. Is your NPC concerned with slaking his own desire for revenge? Evil. Rules? etc...

Of course any ambiguity makes the NPC a candidate for neutrality.
With objective morality, you can do things as you see fit. For example, you mostly like consequentialism, but you have a problem with the fact that can consequentialism can justify letting a few innocents die to save many innocents, or even allowing children to die to save many people. So say that there are still a few universal no-nos, such as killing children or the innocent.

Now, if you use subjective morality:

Is your NPC doing evil for good results (consequentialism; chaotic good)? You said yes.
Are his intentions good and virtuous (teleology; neutral good)? You said yes.
Is he doing thing within a rigid moral structure (deontology; lawful good)? You said no.

Your NPC is either NG or CG. Based on the theme of his moral problem, CG seems more appropriate. You can still use universal no-nos, but if morality is largely subjective, your players will have a harder time guessing what those universal no-nos are, so you shouldn't have a lot.

My advise is to answer these questions as you see fit, whether or not you agree with my examples. Then you will know what your NPC's alignment is.

Perspective it also a nice little word here. From the perspective of the person you're killing (especially with the pious man example), what you're doing is evil, or at least wrong, unless their whole intention was to let you kill them. There have been entire plots upon plots built around forcing a normally good aligned character to finish off a victim and thereby "stain himself." But whatever. I decide, as a storyteller, to go with whatever interpretation of alignment makes sense at the time. For a group of players looking for some fun and not tedious philosophical debate, I'll make people seemingly irredeemable and cartoony-level villains (and he stole 46 cakes, and that's bad...). Morality is a subject which I tend to shoo away from, because it causes pointless argument and breeds no correct answer, despite 3,000 years of bickering, so as a storyteller, i try to keep as far away from its reinterpretation, because it ruins all the fun.

A husband and father who kills an attacker to prevent said attacker from raping and killing his wife and children, is that evil?

A pious man sacrifices his son because he was instructed to by his God, is that evil?

Killing someone who was trying to kill you, is that evil.

Murder isn't always evil; sometimes it’s necessary to do good.

Yes, all of those situations listed are evil but not all are murder.

Murder: Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Murder is both illegal and evil.

Killing is not necessarily illegal but it is most certainly evil. I believe that I would kill someone if they were going to rape and kill my wife and children. I fully accept that my act is evil and I am quite comfortable tackling my moral consequences.

Seriously, folks. If you think any form of killing (including survival) is anything but evil, you need to spend some time with self-examination.

As for alignment, it has never been based on true good and evil. Might as well customize your rules to fit your needs. It is only a game.

I'm only just finishing book three now (I know, I'm some Johnny come lately) but I don't recall Varys having done any murdering yet, generally he does help those he percieves as able to do the most good without hurting his own position. So yeah I agree the guy is Neutral or maybe Neutral Good. Also how far I've read probably colours my perspective of Stannis, what I mentioned earlier is still fresh to me, though I agree with Deadmanwalking and realise that the later book will no doubt expand on his motivations (Bastard without mercy seem to be his defining trait thus far).

Sorry for the derail too, I'm just enjoying the books so much at the moment and the mention of other characters from book and film made me wonder about those from a Song of Ice and Fire.

War in real life is always Evil, Pathfinder is more grey since you have things like Liches and Evil Deities. In real life though, both sides of the war think they are justified and wanton destruction and whole sale slaughter of people is never a Good thing. Talking and Communication, Compromise, Empathy, those are good things. That is not to say that soldiers themselves are evil or bad people, they can still be good people, just stuck in a bad situation. Sometimes bad things must be done for the benefit of your side, or the entire planet, but that does not change the fact that they are bad things. I have never been close to being in War, so I can not fault anyone in those types of situations just trying to survive.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other." --John Stuart Mill

A husband and father who kills an attacker to prevent said attacker from raping and killing his wife and children, is that evil?

A pious man sacrifices his son because he was instructed to by his God, is that evil?

Killing someone who was trying to kill you, is that evil.

Murder isn't always evil; sometimes it’s necessary to do good.

Yes, all of those situations listed are evil but not all are murder.

Murder: Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Murder is both illegal and evil.

Killing is not necessarily illegal but it is most certainly evil. I believe that I would kill someone if they were going to rape and kill my wife and children. I fully accept that my act is evil and I am quite comfortable tackling my moral consequences.

Seriously, folks. If you think any form of killing (including survival) is anything but evil, you need to spend some time with self-examination.

As for alignment, it has never been based on true good and evil. Might as well customize your rules to fit your needs. It is only a game.

PS I am a meat eater and a lawful neutral person.

Murder is evil. Killing is awful, but is it evil? Not necessarily. Soldiers generally do not get up in the morning hoping to kill. They'd rather avoid shooting and getting shot at. That they are forced to do it on occasion, is a terrible thing. But evil is another thing entirely.

Curious, if you guys have read a Song of Ice and Fire, where would you guys place the major families from that on the alignment scale?

The Families don't have alignments per se, being collections of people. Individual people have alignments, though.

Some examples:

Eddard Stark: LG (I mean, really, no argument here.)
Robert Barratheon: CN (Was probably once CG...but being king has not done good things to him. Folows his whim, and perhaps his few human conections.)
Stannis Barratheon: LN (Absolute adherence to law, his word, and what is appropriate without any regard for such things as mercy or human life.)
Tyrion Lanister: CG (Doesn't care about laws, and indeed enjoys breaking all the rules when he can, still a decent, nice, guy for the most part.)
Jaime Lannister: N or possibly CN (Cares nothing for strangers, but fiercely loyal to and protective of those he cares about...and wiling to do awful things to protect them. Has no well-defined code. Still wishes he were a better man than he is.)
Cersei Lannister: NE (Utterly selfish, though she does care for her family, willing to break whatever rules she needs to, and cruel for cruelty's sake fairly regularly.)

I think I have to disagree on Jaime. He's definitely a hard one to pin down, but I don't think he is Chaotic. He definitely understands and embraces structure. It's just that he tosses it aside when it suits him (though he tends to do it in secret, putting a Lawful face on in public).

I think Jaime is somewhat NE, edging toward N, with a possible NG on the far horizon. However, knowing Martin, he'd probably think not dragging Jaime back down into the mud for all time is a cop-out. So I expect he'll eventually go nuts and kill everyone, needing to be put down like a dog.

Martin's Method: Imagine the worst thing that can happen to everyone's favorite character, then do something worse to him, just for kicks.

Yes, killing someone for any reason is evil. Any reason. Thou shall not kill. Easy enough. If religion is an issue for you, I am sure I can find a few non-religious folks with similar viewpoints. This is not even a discussion. It simply is evil.

Soldiers are not evil by nature, but they must perform evil acts to survive and win.

Yes, killing someone for any reason is evil. Any reason. Thou shall not kill. Easy enough.

I disagree quite completely. Killing is often unfortunate, but by no means always. What about self defense? What about a serial killer, who will just keep torturing and killing unless stopped, and is about to get away, but you have him in your sights? What if there is someone you love in tremendous pain and they beg for death, literally, and mean it and the pain will only get worse from here? What if you've finally caught the monster who, say, tortured your wife to death?

Are any of those Evil? Maybe. Personally, I'd say none of them are really Evil (not even the fourth, though I know that viewing vengeance as potentially Good is controversial), and others might disagree on the last two...but those first two, it's real hard to argue that killing was a bad thing in those situations.

Irranshalee wrote:

If religion is an issue for you, I am sure I can find a few non-religious folks with similar viewpoints.

I'm sure you could. You could also easily find religious people (either Christian or non-Christian) who disagree with you in the strongest possible terms. Me, for example.

Irranshalee wrote:

This is not even a discussion. It simply is evil.

There clearly is a discussion, since so far you're the only person to advance this point. Everyone else seems to feel killing is sometimes justified.

Irranshalee wrote:

Soldiers are not evil by nature, but they must perform evil acts to survive and win.

No, they mustn't. Not necessarily anyway. Killing the enemy in wartime is not usually evil (though there are exceptions, such as people who've already surrendered).

I think I have to disagree on Jaime. He's definitely a hard one to pin down, but I don't think he is Chaotic. He definitely understands and embraces structure. It's just that he tosses it aside when it suits him (though he tends to do it in secret, putting a Lawful face on in public).

He definitely puts on a Lawful face...but his heart's not in it. I can certainly be persuaded to Neutral, that being one of my existing picks anyway.

Bruunwald wrote:

I think Jaime is somewhat NE, edging toward N, with a possible NG on the far horizon. However, knowing Martin, he'd probably think not dragging Jaime back down into the mud for all time is a cop-out. So I expect he'll eventually go nuts and kill everyone, needing to be put down like a dog.

Jaime never displays the sadism inherent in Cersei or Joffrey (or his father)...well, not to any great degree anyway, I suppose he is a bit of an ass. And he does awful things only to protect people he cares about, and tries hard to be a decent guy when he can arrange it (keep his word, things like that). That...sounds really Neutral to me.

Bruunwald wrote:

Martin's Method: Imagine the worst thing that can happen to everyone's favorite character, then do something worse to him, just for kicks.

Are you sure you aren't confusing him with Joss Whedon? ;)

Jokes aside, I don't think it's quite as bad as all that. Nobody has plot armor is all...which means that such things could happen, not will happen.

Yes, killing someone for any reason is evil. Any reason. Thou shall not kill. Easy enough. If religion is an issue for you, I am sure I can find a few non-religious folks with similar viewpoints. This is not even a discussion. It simply is evil.

Soldiers are not evil by nature, but they must perform evil acts to survive and win.

If I understand you, it would be clearer to state that people are not evil, but must perform evil acts to survive, not merely soldiers.

I think I have to disagree on Jaime. He's definitely a hard one to pin down, but I don't think he is Chaotic. He definitely understands and embraces structure. It's just that he tosses it aside when it suits him (though he tends to do it in secret, putting a Lawful face on in public).

I think Jaime is somewhat NE, edging toward N, with a possible NG on the far horizon. However, knowing Martin, he'd probably think not dragging Jaime back down into the mud for all time is a cop-out. So I expect he'll eventually go nuts and kill everyone, needing to be put down like a dog.

Martin's Method: Imagine the worst thing that can happen to everyone's favorite character, then do something worse to him, just for kicks.

Bruun, are you talking books or TV series?

Spoiler:

In books 3 and 4 Jaime gets put through the wringer and comes out the other side acting much more lawful and, dare I say, good, but no worries, only once or twice. I suppose you could argue that he was always lawful with awesome-Lannister-royal-twincest as his ideal, but pushing Bran out the window was pretty evil no matter how you spin it.

On topic: it's interesting to think about the legal status of dueling and blood feud style vengeance in a D&D world. It would suck to be on the receiving end of either, but they might fall well outside the legal definition of murder to the point of being cultural norms.